tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post6014476892586040941..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: More about non-menEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-3134298562988099972012-01-15T14:38:58.873+00:002012-01-15T14:38:58.873+00:00>>Was the form used much outside of the expl...>>Was the form used much outside of the explicit discussion of it?<br /><br />I don't know. It's often very hard to tease out technical meanings of Latin from their ordinary meaning. Also, the distinction comes from Aristotle's greek, so you have a distinction in Latin being used to express a distinction in Greek.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-78662340879740255192012-01-15T13:27:23.995+00:002012-01-15T13:27:23.995+00:00Was the form used much outside of the explicit dis...Was the form used much outside of the explicit discussion of it?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-87645416153629846852012-01-15T09:58:54.813+00:002012-01-15T09:58:54.813+00:00>>But how should "homo non est iustus&q...>>But how should "homo non est iustus" be translated? "A man is just. Not!"?<br /><<<br />This is the problem I was alluding to. 'homo est non iustus' means 'a man is non-just', i.e. affirms the existence of a person who is not just. But 'homo non est iustus', with the negative before the verb, is a problem. Your suggestion is internet slang for sentential negation i.e. it is not the case that a man is just. This is logically equivalent to 'no man is just', which is not the intended meaning of 'homo non est iustus'.<br /><br />That's as much as I can say, because of the confusion surrounding what they meant.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-36574578471586444592012-01-14T23:21:35.660+00:002012-01-14T23:21:35.660+00:00>> Note that 'man is just' etc is be...>> Note that 'man is just' etc is better translated as 'a [or the] man is just'.<br /><br />But how should "homo non est iustus" be translated? "A man is just. Not!"?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.com